Don't exist. As far as from what I can tell, a good argument falls into one of three categories:
1. The fallacy is hidden in the argument. For example, Matt Slick's transcendental argument for God's existence sets up a false dilemma and then tries to violate it later on in the argument. It also makes an equivocation fallacy between logic and logical absolutes. Sometimes the definitions of terms will be different to accommodate a contradiction.
2. The argument is just an analogy. For example, Paley's Watchmaker analogy is known for demonstrating the teleological argument. Plantinga's irrational tribe that see's trees as demon's is an analogy he gives for his evolutionary argument against naturalism. Analogies are meant to convey the idea in a more familiar way, it shouldn't be the foundation of your argument; if it is, the analogy is probably dis-analogous.
3. The argument is valid and possibly sound, but it doesn't point to god's existence. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument concludes with the astounding claim that "the universe has a cause." Such a cause may be God or some quantum phenomenon. As noted by Matt Dillahunty, even if we grant that the cause of the universe by a really powerful supernatural being called God, that does not mean that it currently exists. It could have drained all of its energy in the creation of the universe or desist in some other event. By other definitions of God, defining the being to being eternal, this argument also fails to demonstrate that being.
No comments:
Post a Comment